Ghost Inspector

- Detailed failure messages and video of what happened during tests; it was easy to figure out why a particular test ailed without re-running it. - API integration; we were able to wire our test suites into our CI pipelines without oo much additional effort (using Azure DevOps plugin & integration with Pager Duty for failures) - Responsive support - loved that you guys are available to answer questions whenever we have them - Data-driving - we used this feature to capture and drive tests in different environments with different master data (single test, multiple execution) which reduced cost of ownership - Ability to build component-ized tests which were constructed from re-usable script components; massively reduced the cost of ownership by removing duplication between tests - Costs are relatively low for our entire org when compared with other commercial tools (HP, Ranorex, Tosca) - Quickly recording data migration or other ad-hoc automation jobs is a cinch, accelerating data setup and other jobs

As a long term heavy user of GI, the following are listed as dislikes, but hopefully the suggestions would be considered by the team :) - Our app relies heavily on succesful API calls to sync the test with the app, GI provides no mechanism to wait for the result of a specific api call before continuing execution. This resulted in flaky tests which would sometimes work and sometimes fail depending on how rapidly the api responded. - Without care, tests ended being a long list of browser instructions (click, check, navigate, etc) and the sense of the test was lost. It would be great to see a way to group / folder up steps within a test that could be labelled with the intent of the test (labels per step are a half-way house, but require test authors to use them ...) - global / test variables are very useful, and it would be even better if they were suggested automatically when writing steps (autocomplete / suggest) - automatically generated element locators based on ARIA markup (role, lable, for, etc) would be better than the current DOM structure based approach (td > div > etc). - source control; there isn't any - whilst you can extract and source control tests individually, once you start importing / calling other scripts all bets are off. An audit history for tests (who edited what / when) would go a long way toward working around this issue. Maintaining different versions of the test for different feature sets (feature switches) was unmanageable. - API integration - stopping a test run is not currently included in the Azure Devops integration, so cancelled runs have to be manually stopped in GI to avoid consuming minutes - You can only wait for up to a minute for an element and this is global for an entire test, so if you have a step or a process which takes longer than this, you have to use a static wait which introduces flakiness into your tests. It would be great if there was a method which allowed you to wait for an element to be shown (or hidden) with a timeout that's longer than 60s.

Initially, it was automating repetitive regression testing, to reduce manual effort which saved time and allowed us to release changes to market faster.

Ghost Inspector has been the best tool for us to test and ensure everything is working as expected. We have unit testing at the code level, but Ghost Inpsector has helped us significantly more since the tests are more powerful. The API is super powerful and helped us build the testing into our CI/CD with perfect integrations with Slack. We have a dedicated test creator and the ease of creating new tests as our platform evolves has been the cherry on top. We use this literally dozens of times a day. The very few times we had to contact support we got a response back in minutes.

There are no downsides to using Ghost Inspector.

With our fast evolving product at Tadabase, staying on top the hundreds of place our updates can have impact has been challenging. With this tool, we now automate that entire process.

Incredible Time Savior for Web-based apps to run sanity checks before releases !! Saved us from releasing bugs.

Would love to have the ability to automate native mobile apps.

Running sanity checks across the site before releases. It saves time and human errors. It has made us more productive enabling frequent releases.

Ghost Inspector is easy to use which allows you to work on all the other areas of work without spending hours or days trying to get an auto test to run right and stay running.

I wish Ghost had a Microsoft Explore browser auto-test option. I think they mentioned they are working on this now.

The ease of use solved a lot of what all the other test automation tools out there do not provide.

It´s straightforward to record test plans. Very user-friendly. The snapshot comparison is a life saver : sometimes things go wrong due to content uploaded by the user, or a faulty release, but the content we are looking for is there. However the page broken or content is hidden . Ghost inspector AUTOMAGICALLY spots the error and raises the alarm on TEAMS. It also records previus tests results and it´s easy to go back to a date and see not only the test but screenshots recorded on demand during the test execution.

Even though you can export a whole test plan to various text-friendly formats, you cannot import in bulk. Sometimes we ship the PRE test plan and have to edit URL´s to adapt them to the PRO environment. This could be sped up by using labels for the URL´s, but you´d still have to import all the tests one by one.

Order a trial. Using its basic features, recording the tests with the plugin will allow you to be productive in minutes. Have a look at the user documentation; it´s very user-friendly; there are even concise videos you´ll easilly leaned what other features you can use once you start working with it.

We manage 39 sites, with ghost inspector, we can do over 130+ (and growing) tests daily to ensure nothing has gone wrong, it allows us to provide our content is showing as expected and spot and solve errors before our key users realize its there. It also helps us to do very powerful regression tests before we release new features on the test enviroment avoiding rollbacks (and drama!) on the production servers. We are releasing new features with a ghost inspector test plan and adding more projects on every issue we solve.

Using the dashboard, you can very easily set up your own automated test and schedule it. There's also a Chrome extension that lets you easily create tests and see results!

Don't have anything that I dislike about Ghost Inspector at this moment.

It provides automated web testing of our web application for accounting.

Clean and elegant dashboard allows you to easily set up your own suite of automated tests and schedule them to run as you need them. Also very useful Chrome extension that lets you easily create the tests!

It is missing API testing functionality.

It provides automated web testing of our ecommerce applications.

The team is super engaged, supportive, and responsive. Easy to use platform, making some complex tasks straightforward.

Nothing I don't like about the GhostInspector platform/product.

We implemented Ghost inspector to assist and automate testing across a complex set of overlapping customer journeys

It can be used for QA in some cases. Changes registered by the Ghost Inspector may be missed by an experienced QA.

It's not very cheap, it costs $ 99 / mo for the basic package.

It is not necessary to constantly check the correctness of the site, the Ghost Inspector does it instead of your and alerts you as needed.

I liked how I could just install the Chrome plugin and record the tests easily. Another great thing is it let me upload a spreadsheet of test data and set the variable in the test to read from the spreadsheet.

Could only upload 10 records at a time on free trial via spreadsheet, but not a big deal since it was a free trial

I used it to generate test data for a machine learning experiment. It was way better than having to code a test from scratch or manually do the tests to generate the data